61–70 of 72 posts
Does anyone have a good theory for what they think intuition is? I'm interested in process. What is the mapping algorithm that transforms problem into solution? While intuition appears to be magic, I believe that there is a very concrete process happening in our subconscious. My personal guess is that we're transforming the problem into a format more suited for different modules of our brain to process. For the table…
Does anyone have a good theory for what they think intuition is? I'm interested in process. What is the mapping algorithm that transforms problem into solution? While intuition appears to be magic, I believe that there is a very concrete process happening in our subconscious. My personal guess is that we're transforming the problem into a format more suited for different modules of our brain to process. For the table…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory#Dual-proce...
Kahneman and Tversky spent a good deal of time trying to identify the major heuristics employed (and biases caused) by the more "intuitive" of the two systems used for thinking.
(You may note that at the time this paper was published there was no concept of Dual Processes and the phrases "System 1/2" are never used.)
http://psiexp.ss.uci.edu/research/teaching/Tversky_Kahneman_...
Feynman also said the following (in the "The Character of Physical Law" lectures): Every one of our laws is a purely mathematical statement in rather complex and abstruse mathematics. Newton's statement of the law of gravitation is relatively simple mathematics. It gets more and more abstruse and more and more difficult as we go on. Why? I have not the slightest idea. It is only my purpose here to tell you about this…
So, I think you should think about intuition, math, whatever else you have in your pocket as tools. They give the right answer when used correctly and sometimes give the wrong answer even when you're sure you're using them correctly. I think though that intuition CAN be more insidious because it's what you've experienced! It HAS to be true, you think.
A problem is that the reverse is also true. Simple example: stretch a rope around the earth that fits tightly and add 1 m to the length. Can a cat go under the rope (it's always a cat). Intuitively that seems like a "No". The simplest of formulae says "Yes" ( 1m/2pis = +/- 15 cm). Here, pretty much everyone has to resist intuition and trust numbers. I think the best way to conceptualize intuition is some sort of unco…
Intuitively it can also be answered: suppose you pinch the rope, so it is tight (you step on it and pull from between your two feet, for example). You'd have a handle for the earth that will go to about just above your knee. A cat fits!
Intuitions are insights (hints) from so-called ancient, non-verbal (pre-linguistic) instinctive "knowledge" or "genetic memory". It is not only the kind of knowledge of how birds "know" how to make nests or men know to run out of building when earthquake happen (without any prior training), but also intuitive knowledge about the nature of reality, properties of physical environment, which has been "trained" before an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wrong on two levels: Our physical intuitions are Galilean, not classical, mechanics (that is, they are non-Newtonian). For example, our intuitions tell us that an object set in motion eventually slows down and stops. That's Galilean (also termed "folk physics" or "naive physics", usually by cognitive scientists). Most of us had to study formal physics to advance to Newtonian classical mechanics. Quantum mechanics (QM…
I think you're calling Aristotelian physics "Galilean mechanics."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I discovered this last year after arrogantly jumping into the first volume of Feynmans Lectures on Physics. 50 pages in, I decided to take a step back and read a calculus book first, but wait my algebra and trig are crap so back to the basics. So yesterday I hit LCM and GCD applications and factoring which are very basic. So, I'll probably resume the initial book in a couple of years or so...
Math is wide and deep. You won’t need to cover every topic in math to get going with physics. If you really are interested in physics there are many things in math, which are, well, less important (for doing basic physics). For example LCM, GCD and factoring. I guess, these things are somewhat important in Computer Science, but I never encountered them in a physics problem. So to get started with physics, I would sug…
A problem is that the reverse is also true. Simple example: stretch a rope around the earth that fits tightly and add 1 m to the length. Can a cat go under the rope (it's always a cat). Intuitively that seems like a "No". The simplest of formulae says "Yes" ( 1m/2pis = +/- 15 cm). Here, pretty much everyone has to resist intuition and trust numbers. I think the best way to conceptualize intuition is some sort of unco…
Intuitively it can also be answered: suppose you pinch the rope, so it is tight (you step on it and pull from between your two feet, for example). You'd have a handle for the earth that will go to about just above your knee. A cat fits!
A problem is that the reverse is also true. Simple example: stretch a rope around the earth that fits tightly and add 1 m to the length. Can a cat go under the rope (it's always a cat). Intuitively that seems like a "No". The simplest of formulae says "Yes" ( 1m/2pis = +/- 15 cm). Here, pretty much everyone has to resist intuition and trust numbers. I think the best way to conceptualize intuition is some sort of unco…
Maybe a better example is, what is the best way to accelerate a ball horizontally from a fixed height? IE how can we most efficiently translate potential energy to kinetic energy in the horizontal direction?